Like many colleagues Ruth Dyson and I spoke to a biker’s rally yesterday about the proposed hike in ACC levies that single out motorcyclists for “special treatment” by way of an exhorbitant increase in levies. It was interesting that Ruth and I had both independently come to the conclusion that the government would back down on the proposal – and would announce that they had listened to the people; reducing the ACC proposal by anything from 25-75%, depending on what they thought they could get away with. All the bikers’ clubs would be able to say that they had won the campaign, but the government’s campaign would only have just begun. There is nothing of value to privatise unless the insurers are able to price risk and maximise returns to their shareholders – ACC is not an insurance scheme and does not operate on these principles.
So how will the government deliver on the promise it has made to the insurance industry at the same time as meeting its commitment not to privatise anything in their first term in government? One word – confidence. ACC is under direct attack by this government with measures designed to undermine confidence in the scheme and what better way than to hike up the levies.
Have you ever wondered why other countries have not taken up ACC if it really is so good? The answer is that powerful business interests, insurance companies (and their shareholders) and of course the legal profession, that is the guaranteed winner in a right-to-sue environment, combine to prevent any other government from daring to challenge their status quo – look how hard Obama has had to fight for health reform in the US – his strongest opponents are the insurers. We must not buy into this debate – the underlying principle of our no-fault scheme is being challenged. The government has chosen motorcyclists – to get people pointing to other claimants – what about the cars that cause the accidents; what about cyclists who pay nothing on top of their earner’s levy; what about sports injuries; what about skiers? Pointing to the individual and the risk of being injured undermines the no-fault principle that underpins the most cost-effective scheme in the world. Remember it was a National government that brought in these separate accounts in the first place. Vehicles can be charged a levy because there is a registration fee paid. The only way they could charge for sports injuries would be by charging clubs. The bikers are at the vanguard of a bigger campaign and we must back them.
Our messages yesterday were ACC is not broke and does not need fixing. Competition is code for privatisation and must be resisted. International insurers want a piece of the NZ action and we must say no. We are better off because we have 24 hour no-fault cover and it costs less than the private insurance industry because it doesn’t have to cream off profits. ACC is the most cost-effective scheme in the world and we must not let our confidence in the no-fault principle be undermined by this government’s not so secret agenda.
Keep fighting, it’s a hard battle. It’s horrible how they’re ripping off Kiwis with this scheme.
So Lianne, you won’t mind if I copy and paste this to give to my partners’ case Manager?
And also supply the link by email?
Edit: my partners’ ACC Case Manager
Why on earth did you expand the coverage to non accident injuries during your time in government ?
The things you covered are clearly matters for the health/welfare system not ACC.
Its not being privatised in any way shape or form and a bit of competition will be breath of fresh air, damned if my premiums are going to cover someone weekend riding on a 30k motorbike.
keep it up! The Tories’ policies on this are just awful, and the arguments we are getting out of them are just depressing (and such barefaced lies…)
Your premiums are going to cover “someone weekend riding on a 30k motorbike.” even if you do go to a private company. Why do people think that competition is going to help ACC it’s just going to make matters worse.
If ACC is already unaffordable then competition *MAY* drive the price of insurance down, which will make it hard for ACC to retain it’s “customers” so the people who do use ACC won’t be as well covered and ACC may have to shut down after which the price of insurance will sky rocket so we will all be stuffed. The people still on ACC even though cheaper option is on offer will likely be people who would not be covered by a private company because of an existing condition.
However, the competition may drive the price of insurance up or reduce cover. Firms may choose to go for the cheaper option and not use ACC, this may mean that workers arn’t as well covered. This isn’t a big deal for office workers as they usually don’t break a leg sitting behind a desk but those doing manual labour will definatly be worse off. If the premium for private company’s insurance is higher than ACC than they will soon go out of business so this whole exercise would have been a waste of time.
There are 2 possibilites, Screw over the entire country or waste a whole lot of time.
When ACC provide cover for injury they cover the cost of that injury.
However if the surgery creates another problem which should have been done at the same time as surgery, ACC throws you on the scrap heap.
Not part of the original ACCIDENT!!!
Skin graft, yeah but infection is not our problem.
Ruptured bowel and artery, but older bowel condition is not our problem.
Herniated Disc in the neck, but degeneration, not our problem.
So if I am not covered I should not have to pay premiums to ACC right?
Let’s have some answers Lianne Dalziel
There are some things about ACC that really need to change though. Not paying for criminals injured while committing crimes is a no-brainer way to save money!
“…and it costs less than the private insurance industry because it doesn’t have to cream off profits.”
With respect, if that is truly the case, then you have nothing to worry about. If it really costs less, then people will simply stay with ACC rather than look elsewhere.
“ACC is the most cost-effective scheme in the world”
You’ll have to forgive me for not taking you at your word. Would you care to back that erroneous statement up with some actual figures?
“Competition is code for privatisation and must be resisted.”
I respectfully suggest you locate a dictionary. ‘Competition’ refers to multiple providers vying for the same business. Privatisation means, very literally, “to change from governmental to private control or ownership.”, i.e. selling ACC. Unless you actually have some evidence to suggest that National plans to sell ACC, you may want to rethink your approach – especially noting that they have explicitly said they *won’t* be selling it. If you have such evidence, then why haven’t you released it? The NZ public isn’t stupid.
“Our messages yesterday were ACC is not broke and does not need fixing.”
That’s blatantly false. When any organisation’s spending exceeds its income, something is very clearly broken, and obviously *does* need to be fixed!
“There is nothing of value to privatise unless the insurers are able to price risk and maximise returns to their shareholders.”
OF COURSE the insurers are able to do that – that’s the entire point of an insurance company. They wouldn’t be interested in competing otherwise, there’s no gain to be had in this particular market niche unless they can either do the job more efficiently than ACC (which seems likely), or provide a better service than ACC.
There’s nothing wrong with valid objections to Government ideas or policy – that is after all the entire point of the Opposition – but I find the blatant lies and hot air I’ve heard from Labour on this issue so far extremely offensive. Firstly it assumes that the NZ public are so stupid that they don’t understand how competition works (yes, there are a few, but by and large people are smart enough to figure that one out on their own, or find a dictionary.) Secondly, I pay your goddamned salary. I expect you to do your job properly; I don’t expect you to waste your time and my hard-earned cash on nonsense like this unless you can back it up with cold, hard facts.
That basically summarises my point – either put up or shut up. If you have evidence to back up your points, then please, release it and let us think for ourselves. If you don’t, then shut up and either go and find some evidence, or drop the issue, and find something more useful to do. Your party is in the political doldrums for a reason – I suggest you collectively wake up to that fact and take a serious look at the path you’re currently on.
Nobody is arguing that ACC is perfect – in fact my very busy electorate office would attest to the imperfections, which seem to indicate that ACC has been instructed to decline certain types of claims, forcing claimants to get additional medical opinions and filing for review. There are elements of the scheme that we should be open to reviewing, but please remember that a lot of what we had to address in government was “un-privatising” the workplace account and drawing that back into the scheme and undoing some of the damage that had been done by Bill Birch in 1992 when he tried to turn it into a quasi-insurance scheme. I was the Opposition spokesperson on ACC back then and I have this incredible sense of deja vu! Don’t buy into the argument – ACC even with its faults is the most cost-effective comprehensive scheme in the world.
@Sherylyn – Labour tidied up the previous medical misadventure provisions, which required claimants to meet one of two tests – rarity & severity or mishap (fault of health professional) – and replaced it with treatment injury. It is true that many more claimants are covered but it has reduced the pressure on the disputes resolution side of the equation. My recollection is that any consequences flowing from the treatment of a covered injury is covered as well. It might pay to talk to a community law centre or pop in to your local electorate office and have a chat to a case-worker or MP. ACC doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions, so they won’t cover treatment costs where there is no link to the cause of the injury.
“Competition will bring down the price of accident injuries” – just like Max Bradford’s competition in the power industry brought down power prices – yeah right!
Steven Gilberd.
Second paragraph… would you care to do the same?
You clearly have a vested interest in the breakup of ACC. Would you care to elaborate?
I dont know about anyone else here but I am not really willing to go down the American road where we have to fight the insurance barons for every bit of cover.
All ACT and National care about is money and profit. And if ACC is opened to the private sector, profit will be placed 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The public, a very distant last. Our ACC and health system is what makes this country great.
Competition will make things far more inefficient and cost more, ie, the US privatised and “competitive” health system costs 3 times what ours does.
damned if my premiums are going to cover someone weekend riding on a 30k motorbike.
Ah, the cry of the truly selfish.
“Ah, the cry of the truly selfish.”
Selfishness if what drives National and ACT. They simply are willing to send people to the wall if it means that they get more money.
Lianne, can you please explain how opening up ACC to competition amounts to privatisation?
Are you saying that in fact the Government intends to sell ACC?
How can ACC not be in a mess if the National government has to find 1.2 billion dollars for fill a hole in ACC covered up by Labour? I think that the blame over the cutting of night classes and hobby schools, which in fact only amounted to 16 million, and also other small funding shortfalls lies at the feet of the Labour party and it’s actions over the ACC shortfall. Bill English had to spend his first $400 million dollars on keeping the scheme afloat, because Labour knew it was in trouble, but didn’t tell the incoming government. Imagine what that $1.2 billion could have done…
CuriO perhaps you should do some reading before you start stating things that have been proven to be untrue, or are you a National party member just running lines?
Have a look at Rod Oram: the political claims and the reality.
At least then you will have some knowledge before you rant!
Just to add another point if I may Lianne.
Can you please explain to me why, as a motorist of 15 years experience with 0 collisions under my belt operating vehicles that are always registered, I should pay the same as people who people who frequently have collisions, who drive drunk, who drive unregistered vehicles, or sometimes a combination of all three?
sean14 are you saying previous claim history should count in assessing your premiums.
Do you support the same approach for hospital care by the state. ie the more taxes you pay the better the care you should get.
Sean14, why are you so against a no fault accident compensation scheme? Why do you want people to have to beg for cover from the insurance barons?
@Steven Gilberd – You seem to have overlooked the underlying social contract that forms the basis of this unique scheme – New Zealanders gave up the right to sue in order to obtain a comprehensive no-fault scheme. The insurance principles you extol as virtues of competition are the antithesis of this principle. I don’t need to read a dictionary to understand that the word “code” is used to describe the difference between what National say they are going to do and what they will do in practice. I am happy to obtain details of the comparative rates of premium charged by private sector insurance companies in other countries vs the comparative ACC levies. The best examples are in workplace insurance – where Australian state comparisons range between twice to three times the amount paid here. Finally, and for @CuriO too, ACC collects more in levies each year than it spends in that year – the debate is around the out-year funding of present year injuries, but I am sure you knew that already!
@Sean14 – I am not sure whether I have explained the founding principles of the scheme well enough – no fault means the cost is shared rather than the risk priced – that’s the difference between ACC and insurance.
The other cost that none of the National Party apologists will confront is the cost imposed on society when they have to insure for public liability – remember the Council in Sydney that had to pay out $5m to the person who dived between the flags and broke his neck. The cost of health care in the US is virtually twice the proportion of GDP that it is in NZ – mainly because of the cost of insurance and litigation.
ACC levies from Road Bikes – $12M p.a.
ACC claims paid for Road Bikes – $62M p.a.
Why is everyone so keen to subsidise a minority’s dangerous choice of transport and/or hobby?
Lianne – with respect, you didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask about the founding principles of ACC, I asked how opening ACC up to competition means the privatisation of ACC.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but unless ACC is sold, I don’t see how it can be privatised. Do you have information to suggest ACC will be sold, or is it more that you are trying to startle some horses with the dirty ‘P’ word?
Ghost – what I’m essentially asking is why should I pay the same as people who engage in riskier behaviour than I do? On top of that, why should I pay to cover people who don’t pay at all? If someone is injured in a vehicle accident, I’ll bet ACC will still cover them even if their vehicle is unregistered.
Your question about health care is disingenuous, I’m talking about pricing risk, not getting more care because you have more money.
If Pat’s figures are correct, surely that says it all? Presuming you want a more equal society, shouldn’t the amount bikies, for example, pay in equal the amount they pay out?
Millsy – I’m against paying the same or more for cover than people who involve themselves in more risky activities than I do. Money is an incentive to work, why shouldn’t the ability to pay less money be an incentive to engage in less risky activities?
Do you have home and contents insurance, car insurance or maybe even health insurance? Are you begging insurance “barons” for that cover? I’m not, I’m engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why should accident cover be any different?
sean14 – those figures are from an ACC Coverplus presentation by ACC to a group of insurance brokers on Friday.
So it would be good that when Goff and the rest of his bikie gang arrive at the Beehive, they can explain why they deserve such a generous subsidy from the rest of us.
Indeed Pat, but you should never let answering a difficult question get in the way of a photo opportunity!
Sorry Lianne, while I support many things Labour, it was ACC under Labour that encouraged me to vote National. In 2007 ACC increased the transport levies by 100% with practically no public consultation, outside the media’s radar and gave us all only 10 weeks to come up with what amount to be several thousand dollars in extra levies. I definitely do not agree with the complete privatisation of ACC as I think it would cripple us hugely in the long term. But opening the Workers Account to competition, well I’m all for it. Why should I, doing the same job as someone else who is an employee have to pay an earners levy $1.43 per $100 PLUS an income related levy of $2.52 per $100 whereas an employee doing the SAME job, only has to pay an earner levy of $1.70 per $100. Even with their employers contribution of $0.78 per $100, their contribution falls well short of mine. Bottom line, the system IS broken and it DOES need to be fixed – fix it or go user pays. You can afford to pay for your own health care and work related injury cover, I can afford it, but the average wage earner can’t. Instead of attacking the government perhaps you could come up with solutions for a system that your party had domain over for 9 years. While I agree with the no faults policy in theory, criminals do not deserve the same grace. How can you possibly justify your views when ACC under labour has paid out support for people who received injuries while committing a crime and were sometimes not even accidental – Graeme Burton was deliberately shot by the police because he is a psycho, there was nothing accidental about it. Labour has to get their head out of the 80s and 90s and start focusing on the now. Spitting out the same old rhetoric will not get you back into government. New Zealanders have had a gutsfall of the amount of irresponsible spending and wastage of the tax payer dollar. It’s time you all faced up to this.